Raju Kumar vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 532 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                        CRIMINAL REVISION No.1226 of 2019

       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-224 Year-2009 Thana- WEST CHAMPARAN GRP CASE
                                      District- West Champaran
     ======================================================

Raju Kumar, 30 years, male, Son of Sri Om Prakash, Resident of Mohalla- Panch Mandir Road, P.S.-Motihari Town, District-East Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Inspector-In-Charge, Railway Protection Force (RPF), Eastern Central Railways, Raxaul, East Champaran.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/Revisionist : Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma, Adv. For the Railways/O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Amaresh Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kumar, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 01-02-2021

Heard Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma, learned

Advocate for the petitioner/revisionist and Mr. Amaresh

Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Railways/opposite

party No. 2. The State is represented by Mr. Shailendra

Kumar, learned Advocate.

2. This criminal revision is directed against the Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1226 of 2019 dt.01-02-2021

judgment and order dated 09.09.2019 passed by the

learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge, POCSO

& SC/ST, West Champaran at Bettiah in Cr. Appeal No. 27

of 2016, whereby he has affirmed the judgment and

conviction of the petitioner/revisionist, but has enhanced the

sentence to two years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the

offence punishable under Section 143 of Railways Act, 1989

(in short the Act) as also the judgment and order of

conviction passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate,

Railways, Narkatiaganj, Bettiah in Trial No. 0378 of 2016

arising out of RPF (Raxaul) Complaint Case No. 224 of

2009, which had sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for

one year and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under

Section 143 of the Act. In default of payment of fine, the

petitioner/revisionist was directed to suffer simple

imprisonment for three months.

3. The petitioner/revisionist was apprehended

while he was standing in a queue before the railway ticket

counter. The aforesaid arrest was effected because the

raiding team had noticed the conduct of the Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1226 of 2019 dt.01-02-2021

petitioner/revisionist to be rather suspicious. He was

identified as Raju Kumar and from his possession, two

reservation requisitions and Indian currency note of Rs.

12340/- and Nepali currency note of 3505/- was also

recovered, apart from a mobile telephone.

4. A complaint, therefore, was lodged under

Section 143 of the Act for carrying on the business of

procuring and supplying of railway tickets in an unauthorized

manner.

5. Altogether seven prosecution witnesses were

examined in the trial, but no independent person appeared

to have been examined.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/revisionist

has submitted that no traveling ticket had been recovered

from him and merely because he was found in possession of

requisition slips for purchase of tickets, that cannot be said

to be any evidence of carrying on the business of procuring

and supplying of railway tickets.

7. It has further been submitted that the

Appellate Court wrongly enhanced the sentence and that also Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1226 of 2019 dt.01-02-2021

on the reasoning which is not supported by evidence and it

was only a caprices of the Appellate Court.

8. Perused the Trial Court as well as the

Appellate Court judgments.

9. The petitioner/revisionist was found with two

railways requisition slips and currency of Nepali and Indian

origin. No explanation also could be provided by him for

being in possession of those requisition slips. The names on

the requisition slips are not of any relative or acquaintance

of the petitioner/revisionist.

10. Thus, the conviction of the

petitioner/revisionist under Section 143 of the Act cannot be

faulted with.

11. However, this Court is of the view that

commensurate with the nature and gravity of the offence,

the sentence imposed by the Appellate Court as well as by

the Trial Court are excessive.

12. The petitioner/revisionist is in custody since

03.07.2019.

13. This Court is of the view that it would be Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1226 of 2019 dt.01-02-2021

appropriate if the petitioner/revisionist is awarded the

sentence for the period which he has already undergone in

custody.

14. This revision application is, therefore,

partially allowed.

15. The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

However, the sentence passed by the Trial Court and

enhanced by the Appellate Court are set aside. The

sentence imposed upon the petitioner/revisionist shall be the

period which he has already undergone in custody.

16. The petitioner/revisionist was released on

bail during the pendency of this revision application by this

Court vide order dated 24.06.2020.

17. The bail-bonds of the petitioner/revisionist,

therefore, stand cancelled.

18. Revision Petition is partially allowed.

(Ashutosh Kumar, J) Praveen-II/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                N/A
Uploading Date          05.02.2021
Transmission Date       05.02.2021